Keep your religion off the state's license plates
Russell Sadler
The religious groups that comprise the anti-abortion movement want the State of Oregon to sponsor license plates that sport the slogan “Choose Life.” Like so many Oregon license plates, they will cost more and the extra money will be funneled only to those groups that counsel adoption but oppose abortion.
The bill is modeled after a 1999 Florida law, according to its Oregon sponsors, Rep. Mac Summers, R-Mollalla and Rep. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas. The Florida law was promoted by Christian Republicans allied with anti-abortion organizations.
Boquist said he thinks the license plates would be a good way to generate money voluntarily for non-profit groups and local government agencies that promote adoption.
Predictably, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood sees other motives. “If this were about the promotion of adoption, a license plate proclaiming, ‘Support Adoption’ ... would fulfill the intent,” Maura Roche told Associated Press.
Boquist says he does not think “Choose Life” plates violate the First Amendment any more than plates supporting Oregon’s Cultural Trust, salmon restoration or Crater Lake research and education.
Boquist and Summers took an oath to uphold the Oregon Constitution, but it’s clear neither lawmaker has read the document or they would not have introduced this silliness.
Oregon’s constitution has no vague language prohibiting the establishment of religion like the U.S. Constitution. Oregon’s Article I, Section 5 is very explicit:
“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous (sic) or theological institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religeous (sic) services in either house of the Legislative Assembly.”
This language has been in the Oregon Constitution since it was drafted in 1857 and ratified in 1859. It reflects a religious skepticism that has been a part of Oregon political culture since the state was formed.
Here’s the story:
In the early 1840s, there were between 800-900 Caucasians in the Oregon Territory. They were divided into three factions in their debate over aligning with Britain or the United States:
Rev. Jason Lee and his Methodist missionaries were the leaders in seeking a secular government aligned with the United States. Disappointed by their failure to convert Native Americans, Lee and the Methodists drifted into land speculation and wanted a secular government to protect their “property rights.”
Fr. Francis Blanchet of the Roman Catholic Church presided over a flock of French-Canadian voyageurs who had retired from the British Hudson Bay Company. They favored continued British rule.
The third faction was the mountain men, nominally led by Joe Meek, who supplied furs to the American fur companies competing with the Hudson Bay Company. This faction was rather independent and really wanted no government at all!
But Fr. Blanchet and his flock were united with Meek and his mountain men in fearing that Rev. Lee and his Methodist missionaries would finance Methodist missions in the territory under the guise of secular government outposts. The charter of the Oregon Provisional Government permitted only voluntary taxation to prevent Lee from doing anything like that.
When Jesse Applegate’s wagon train arrived in the fall of 1843, the Euro-American population of the Oregon territory doubled over night. The newcomers tipped the balance toward affiliation with the United States. The newcomers found the Provisional Governments voluntary taxation ineffective because no one was willing to be the first to step up and pay taxes. Oregon's original state constitution allowed the Legislative Assembly to levy taxes but had an explicit prohibit on appropriating money to benefit religious groups. Article I, Section 5 was the compromise that gained the votes for ratification in 1859. They even denied Lee the authority to hire a legislative chaplain on the public payroll!
Fast forward to 2005.
There is nothing voluntary about buying license plates. It is a tax that grants the privilege of driving on public streets, roads and highways. In some cases, people pay extra and the government appropriates the money to legislatively approved causes from research and education at Crater Lake and salmon restoration to square dancers and ham radio operators.
Varied as they are, all these organizations have one thing in common. They are secular. The “Choose Life” license plate movement and the non-profits that support adoption as an alternative to abortion receive generous contributions from churches to actively promote “church teachings” in the secular world.
This is exactly what Fr. Blanchet’s flock and Meek’s mountain men feared from Lee’s Methodists -- tax-financed promotion of sectarian religious doctrine disguised as secular government.
Any court case testing the constitutionality of tax-financed license plates promoting adoption instead of abortion will revolve around just how closely the courts determine the money “appropriated” by the Legislature “benefits” any “religious or theological institution.”
This sort of religious skepticism is as old as statehood and a deep-seated part of Oregon’s maverick political culture.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 15, '05
If we're going to keep religion off the plates, I think it's time to remove politics from the plates and go back to the old blue and yellow. When I saw a "Veterans for Human Rights" plate, I almost lost it! http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/images/plates/vethrts_plate.jpg
May 15, '05
What is the cogent point of Andy's comment?
Is it that non-profit veterans' organizations pose the same sort of threats to political order that "religious or theological institutions" inherently do, and should be banned from receiving government support?
Is it that the idea of veterans organizing in support of human rights threaten his macho worship of military heroes who operate without regard for human rights?
I doubt this is an appropriate forum for promotion of that sort of opinion.
May 15, '05
It's reasonable to have a government license plate which supports former government employees in support of an important aspect of international law.
It's unreasonable to have a government organization promote a single religious orgainization through government action unless they can find a way to do the same service for every religious organization that requests such a service for the exact same fee.
8:53 a.m.
May 15, '05
As a member of the House Transportation Committee, I predict that the "Choose Life" plates will die.
I actually support the addition of license plates to support Oregon non-profits, but not plates that make a political statement on one side or the other of an ideological issue. We've got enough division after 15 years of Republican control in the Legislature, we don't need any more.
May 15, '05
Now hold up just a second... How does this bill relate to religion, other than that a lot of religious people support it for religious reasons. The choice/anti choice debate has nothing to do with religion. It's wrong to make or oppose laws based on the intent of the people promoting them.
Now, I'm not totally sure I agree with Rep. Hunt either; what does it say about us as Oregonians if we can't deal with a little controversy. I for one would love to have a license plate which said "Fully Fund Oregon Schools", or "The GOP cuts, children lose" (I checked, it fits on the license plate form). What about license plates which say "Support Oregon Charter Schools", or "Lower Taxes for All". Its a fine line when you start to say that some statements are "too controversial" to be put on a license plate.
May 15, '05
I'm repelled by anti-abortion bumper stickers, and the idea of license plates bearing right-wing "moral" sentiments is even more repugnant.
I don't care to be force fed these messages while driving down the highway, staring at the rear end of the vehicle in front of me.
Adrienne Bailin
May 15, '05
afs: It's unreasonable to have a government organization promote a single religious orgainization through government action unless they can find a way to do the same service for every religious organization that requests such a service for the exact same fee.
Umm...no. Russell explained the rules; what you mean is:
It's unconstitutional to have a government organization promote a single religious organization through government action.
No unless. No hypothetical loopholes to weasel through.
May 15, '05
Suzii: There are two way to handle the situation legally. Do it for nobody, or do it for everyone. I'd prefer the "nobody" route, but doing it for anyone and everyone who asks would also be legal.
May 15, '05
Wow, Big Surprise: A BlueOregon writer fails to tell the whole story, even when it's staring him or her in the face.
In addition to Section 5, Oregon's Bill of Rights also contains the following provisions:
Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.
Now, certainly the above citations by no means clear up this license plate business once and for all. But for any purportedly rational and fair-minded person, Oregon’s guiding document does, when taken in sum, seem to unambiguously complicate things a bit more than Mr. Sadler's accounting would have you believe. Sadler, by the way, is a sorry excuse for a “registered Independent,” as his bio suggests, if he can’t understand that for a lot of contemporary Oregon citizens (and irrespective of individual hypocrisies) protecting unborn human beings is at least as worthy a social goal as protecting unborn fish.
If anything, the state got into trouble when it began encouraging the vainglorious look-at-me-make-a-statement plates to begin with. I agree with Andy (and in general afs) along the lines that “it's time to remove politics from the plates and go back to the old blue and yellow.” Wanna donate to a worthy cause? Then find one and do it. Wanna give your fellow Oregonians something to read when you cut em’ off in rush hour traffic? Well why the hell do you think God made bumper stickers?
May 15, '05
I have never understood how the right wing managed to latch onto the pro-life bandwagon. They don't care a fig about children once they are born (unless it's to make them pray in school), so why care about the unborn? Add to that, their economic policies are a large factor driving young women to get abortions in the first place.
That being said, I have no problem with "Choose Life" licence plates around . . . it is a free country and what is wrong with (politely) asking women to consider alternatives to abortion? That is true "pro-choice."
It's a shame the pro-life movement has been hijacked by right-wing loonies like Randall Terry and mule-boy Neal Horsley . . . so sad.
May 15, '05
Vanity plates proclaiming support for a political/religious point of view are misplaced, and genuine, bona-fide evidence that our state is digressing from its' core function of keeping the peace, maintaining the infrastructure, overseeing the schools, and watching their costs. While pandering to a sub-group of religiously inclined individuals may make for some feel-good politics, in my view our states' funds are misplaced by not simply reverting to the dear old blue n gold of days gone by. Yuppification of something so mundane as a numbered plate on the front and back of your car points to a deeper problem, namely that some people in life simply lack a genuine hobby or other creative outlet for their energies. As concession to the permission for such religiously oriented vehicle ID plates would amount to state-sponsored prosyletization, I want to take a stand against such a practice and instead request that they turn their energies and attentions to budget oversight of problematic agencies such as ODOT. Faith-based administration is all good and fine, but I believe the citizens of oregon would largely tend to have more faith in our state governing bodies were they to publicly evidence a little more common sense and fiscal frugality, from time to time, if for no other purpose than to break up the monotony...
May 15, '05
Remember, we're talking about Mac Sumner who just introduced a bill (HB 3474) which specifcally would help his church build on farm lands, running counter to a 7-0 supreme court ruling against them earlier this month. He's a extreme right winger and I only wish his district was a little more competitive cause I'd like to take him out.
May 15, '05
I'm at a total loss as to how a license plate with "Choose Life" has anything at all to do with religion. I'm just an old blue collar democrat with no religous affiliation whatsoever, but I held my 2 pound still born grandbaby in my arms after she was still born after only 17 weeks in her mommy's womb. Folks, that convinced me beyond any doubt. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Choose Life.
My party of the past 40 years somehow ended up on the wrong side of this issue and it's sad.
May 15, '05
7:29 p.m.
May 15, '05
If the purpose of specialty plates is to raise funds for a cause, and the purported cause is adoption, then the plates should say something like "choose adoption."
Here's a compromise:
Choose life - abolish the death penalty
May 15, '05
Andy seems to have an anger management problem. If he can't handle people making judgements about his character from the positions he espouses, why is he embarrassing himself publicly?
His attacks on the character of veterans are disgusting, but more importantly it is an off-topic distraction. All of us guest commentators have a responsibility not to stray far afield off-topic, as pointless ramblings drown out serious discussion. I reserve the right to call violators on it as I see it.
I find it hard to believe a Progressive would fail to see the inherent threat to political order entailed in lending government support to religious organizations. Democracy demands that the officers of government serve the common good of all citizens, while religious organizations have the common feature of demanding overriding loyalty to followers of their perception of a higher power. That is a threat to our political system, unlike partisan political expression within it.
May 16, '05
If you don't like the "Choose Life" license plates, why doesn't your group of abortion-rights activists lobby for a competing "Choose Death" plate?
May 16, '05
Hey Ed Bickford,
Andy seems to have an anger management problem. Really??? There are an amazing amount of people on this site who seem to have the ability to make psychological evaluations from just a few posts. You are truly an enlightened person! How do you figure I have an anger problem?
If he can't handle people making judgements about his character from the positions he espouses, why is he embarrassing himself publicly? Let's see, I'm the one over at http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/red_oregon_take.html who said that the bible says you must make judgments about others. How do you come to the conclusion that I can't handle it??? I don't feel that I have embarrassed myself, the only embarrassing thing seems to be your psychological evaluations.
His attacks on the character of veterans are disgusting, but more importantly it is an off-topic distraction. And how did I attack the character of veterans? We are talking about what the government sanctions on plates. So how was my first post off topic? It seems that the only distraction is your inability to realize there is little to no difference between putting politics and religion on state property.
All of us guest commentators have a responsibility not to stray far afield off-topic, as pointless ramblings drown out serious discussion. A serious discussion??? Thanks for making me laugh this morning. Once again, I didn't stray off topic.
I reserve the right to call violators on it as I see it. Time for glasses?
I find it hard to believe a Progressive would fail to see the inherent threat to political order entailed in lending government support to religious organizations. First of all, I would never call myself a progressive. I'm a classical liberal. Second, I find it hard to believe a Progressive would fail to see the inherent threat to political order entailed in lending government support to specific political organizations.
Democracy demands that the officers of government serve the common good of all citizens, while religious organizations have the common feature of demanding overriding loyalty to followers of their perception of a higher power. Atheism is a religious belief and it doesn't 'demanding overriding loyalty to followers of their perception of a higher power'
That is a threat to our political system, unlike partisan political expression within it. Once again, why do we need anything but the state and license number on the plates? Aren't bumper stickers good enough for everybody?
May 16, '05
WOW! Andy, I agree with you!
Blue and gold, numbers and state.
Get you're vanity of our plate.
Seriously, we have turned government into a business and it should not be. The goal of business is to make money. The goal of government should be to serve the people. As for the common good, we still need to define that.
Atheism a religion? No. Atheism is a belief. It's a world view. It's extremely personal. Religion is group think. It surrenders personal to a proposition developed and destroyed since time immemorial.
Andy, you're a Democrat?!? A response is off topic, but I would love to see you explain that one? And if you believe the Bible gives license to judge others, I would recommend the New Testament. The Son of God made some changes there, you know. Of course, I'm assuming you're Christian and I know how bitterly you resent anyone assuming anything about you simply because you write here so often and with such a volatile and confrontational style.
Anger management? I think you manage to express your anger quite effusively and effectively. I will be getting back to you about Franken, but you want foot notes, so I have to do some research, but I printed your response.
2:23 p.m.
May 16, '05
Atheism--a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods--only seems like religion to those who can't imagine being without one.
It's unimaginably twisted to assert that keeping the state out of religious matters is itself an endorsement of a religion. But when one cannot distiguish between Truth as revealed by one's diety and facts, these misunderstandings are inevitable.
It ain't that hard really. There are tens of thousands of scientists all over the world who are able to differentiate between their spiritual lives and the empirical world that they inhabit.
May 16, '05
Hey Gregor,
WOW! Andy, I agree with you! Thanks!!!
Seriously, we have turned government into a business and it should not be. The goal of business is to make money. The goal of government should be to serve the people. As for the common good, we still need to define that. Generally, I agree with you.
Atheism a religion? No. Atheism is a belief. It's a world view. It's extremely personal. Aren't all religions beliefs???
Religion is group think. All major religions are group think. So are all political organizations. See the tie again??? Have you read 'Groupthink' by Irving Janis? Tammy Bruce does a brilliant lecture on group think and covers some of it in her book 'The New Thought Police'.
Andy, you're a Democrat?!? A response is off topic, but I would love to see you explain that one? Nope! I'm a classical liberal which puts me in neither major party. I don't see how I could join either of them.
And if you believe the Bible gives license to judge others, I would recommend the New Testament. Here's what I wrote about judgment on another post here at BlueOregon: 'Hey LT, I go nuts when people pull bits and pieces and misapply them. You said, What about the beginning of Matthew 7 "Judge not, that ye be not judged"? This is one of the best known and most misunderstood and misapplied scriptures in the bible. If you read 1-5, you will see that it is addressed to a hypocrite. It's not a prohibition against honest judgment, it is a solemn warning against hypocritical judgment. There are dozens of examples in the bible that direct people to make proper judgments of others. If you really believed the bible instructed us not to judge, then why does the church believe in courts and applying punishments for sins?' Does that change your mind at all on judgments???
The Son of God made some changes there, you know. Of course, I'm assuming you're Christian and I know how bitterly you resent anyone assuming anything about you simply because you write here so often and with such a volatile and confrontational style. I'm sorry, I just don't see my writing style as volatile and/or confrontational. I love clarity and I try to convey it the best I can. I don't know why others don't use my style here. You know exactly who and what I am addressing.
Anger management? I think you manage to express your anger quite effusively and effectively. Thanks again!
I will be getting back to you about Franken, but you want foot notes, so I have to do some research, but I printed your response. Notify me when you do.
May 17, '05
Wow, the thread on the plates thing keeps on going, and going, and going...
Vanity plates...do they bring more money into the state, or do the taxpayers end up financing more stupidity?
You can get a lot of different vanity plates, which is nice, but can't people just go out and buy bumper stickers instead?
You can get the jesus-fishy emblem for your car, even, if the concept of vinyl adhesive on your car bumper is too declasse, there's no end of ways to convert a motor vehicle into a rolling 'snottier than thou' statement, but as far as I'm concerned from the standpoint of a godless heathen non-believer, it all looks trashy and distracting, and if people think I'm reading their plate numbers or some political statement printed on the darn thing as I'm passing them, well they should think again...
A car is a mode of transit, a license plate is a legal requirement. Let's keep the god thing in the church thing, and the car thing on the road thing...
May 17, '05
Still, I don't see how the statement "Choose Life" is a religious statement. It isn't even a call to outlaw abortion--just a call to get people to consider alternatives. One can be pro-life and non-religious, as well as religious and pro-choice.
If your license plate said "Jesus Saves," that would constitute a religious statement. "Choose Life" does not, any more than "Please keep off the grass."
<h2>Hey, I might even get a "Choose Life" license plate myself. It would go well between my "No on 36" and "No Blood For Oil" bumper stickers. Think of what it would do to the conservative minds!</h2>